This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-02-06 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| We find that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners. As early as the pre-trial of the case at bar, the name of Judge Durias has already cropped up as a possible witness for the defendants, herein respondents. That the respondents chose not to present him is not an indicia per se of suppression of evidence, since a party in a civil case is free to choose who to present as his witness. Neither can Judge Durias' testimony in another case be considered as newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified to by Judge Durias which were existing before and during the trial, could have been presented by the petitioners at the trial below.[16] The testimony of Judge Durias has been in existence waiting only to be elicited from him by questioning.[17] | |||||